Are You A Sitting Duck For A Shooting Lawsuit - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
PlusP-
You're right. You haven't responded to one comment by Joe. Clearly you have little interest in the topic of this thread.

Your statements are non-responsive to the questions asked and you continue to respond, out of context, in a failed effort to....accomplish what? Your study of 900 videos indicates only that you watch too much television. ;) It has not added anything to the serious study of firearms and self defense, as your conclusions have repeatedly been refuted and demonstrated to be the result of spurious logic.

Personally, having read post after post from you, I have yet to learn anything, except that you disdain trainers and training methods that are far better understood than yours, you cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees (even those with greater experience) and you eschew polite debate, in favor of pedestrian barb and predictable sarcasm. Certainly, there must be something you can offer us that is not of the wellspring of negativity. The rest should be saved for rec.guns.
Respectfully-
Rich Lucibella
 
well here is my $.02 worth.

as far as the original topic, trainers can be held liable for what they teach, but it is the person who used the force option that is ultimately responsible. that person should they have the unfortunate opportunity to be put into position to use deadly force, they are the one responsible for their decisions and reactions, whether it be fight or flee.
i will say this, if they had the option to flee and instead stayed to fight, then they will be scrutinized in the legal system, because they didn't use the option to leave.
lethal force is the last and final option, and only used when no other options are available.

if one has to shoot, whether it be up close and personal or at further distances, then they need to hit their intended target. if you miss your target, then your shots were ineffective, but you are also responsible for
the rounds that missed their intended target.
in simpler terms, one needs to make every shot hit its intended target. the rounds that miss their intended target are a great liability, make every shot count, including the most important one, "the first one".
it doesnt' matter which technique or stance you use, find one that works and practice.

in swat we believe that if it takes you an extra fraction of a second to get the best sight picture that you can, then you do so, make each and every shot count. it does one no good to hurry and get a shot or shots off and not hit the intended target should the time come. make each shot hit its intended target. if one is to seek training, get training from someone reputable, and that has
good credentials, a working knowledge in what they teach. a trainer who works or has a long work history in self defense and use of force, such as leo's, will hold a good resume and be reputable in the eyes of the courts.
a trainer who has very little, or no working knowledge in self defense and use of force, will be more scrutinized. if you use deadly force your trainer(s) will probably summoned into court, and their credentials will be part of what are tested, as well as what they teach.
 
Can we find a more ridiculous premise for our debate? A trainer being sued for the actions of a student?

So if I get in a car accident tomorrow and kill a family, God forbid, are you going to sue my high school drivers ed teacher?

Thats what it would approximate, since most LEO's, having graduated from the academy, hardly, if ever, train again!

The training methods are not at fault, it is the work ethic of the trainee that is at fault. The most that some guys shoot is when they "qualify" once a year. Outside of "qualification" they don't shoot, they usually take their gun belt, with gun in holster, off and leave it in their locker at the end of their shift.

As I have stated before, We need to demand more in the way of qualification. A 70% score to pass is not good enough, especially when you take into consideration the course of fire.

The fault lies not on the trainers but on the trainee's.

Someone used the analogy of a professional coaching staff being fired if their team performs dismally. Your right, but the coaching staff also works hands on with the athletes for the duration of the season.
Furthermore, how many athletes are cut from the roster for showing up to camp out of shape?

Apply the same logic to LEO's, thats like saying the Steeler's don't need a current coach, after all, they each had a high school coach.
LEO's don't need to keep their training current, after all, they went to the academy.

Range qualification scores have been dumbed down so that anyone can qualify.
Its like the NFL scouting staff deciding a 7 second 40 is good enough since no one wants to train hard enough to meet a sub 5 second time.

Doesn't happen, don't make it you go home, maybe if that was applied to LEO's we would see a lot more training.

And the standards would be raised as part of the natural progression.

------------------
"There is a common thread between competition and combat shooting - only hits count" Keith Cunningham

[This message has been edited by FVK (edited March 22, 2000).]
 
THIS I can't pass up!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pluspinc:
You spent a day or two in a classroom. Such credentials are pretty slim for a foundation for an argument.[/quote]

Much like one of your offered classes huh? However, if his were a two day class that is double the amount of time spent in your longest class... "Outdoor Advanced Handgun". :rolleyes:

------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"

[This message has been edited by Schmit (edited March 22, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mooser:
i will say this, if they had the option to flee and instead stayed to fight, then they will be scrutinized in the legal system, because they didn't use the option to leave.[/quote]

Not necessarily. There are places where people do NOT have a Duty to Retreat. You house is a perfect example. Depending on which State you live in Castle Law could apply. Each State has different laws that determine when someone has a Duty to Retreat.



------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
 
> The fault lies not on the trainers but on the trainee's.

There's an interesting question: How do we assign responsibility for training failures?

If 90% of training graduates succeed in real life, we're more likely to find fault with the 10% who screw up than with the trainers. Anyone who's worked in large organizations knows that there will always be some misfits and deadwood who slip through the system.

But if the numbers are reversed, with 90% of training graduates failing in real life, does it still make sense to find fault with those who screwed up, even though they're the overwhelming majority? Perhaps, in that case, there's a problem in the training and the successful 10% are just those with the right combination of talent, motivation and luck needed to succeed despite the way they were trained.

There's only so much that can be done to improve the quality of the trainees. At some point, the trainer has to take responsibility for working with what he's been given.

The greatest math professor in the world isn't going to get very far teaching first graders how to add if he starts out by handing them copies of his thesis on number theory. He knows his stuff, and it works for him, but it won't do his class any good until he can communicate it to them at their level. And the PTA won't be impressed by the one in a thousand math prodigy who actually learns something if all the other kids end the school year as ignorant as they were when they started.

By the way, I'm not saying that this is actually the case with firearms training. I don't know enough of the facts to make a judgement. I'm just making the point that Pluspinc would have a case if the numbers support him.

I'd like to see police administrators and the recruits they hire take a greater interest in marksmanship, but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, if Pluspinc has a way to make the best of a bad situation, then let's see what he has to offer.
 
Matt,
The numbers don't support plusp. Look at his much vaunted video collection. He states often how the shooters aren't looking at the sights, he has even posted pictures of said shooters in a classic point shooting "stance", ie; shooting one handed, support arm out to side in a way that would make Col. Applegate proud.

So we are led to believe their training is at fault, when this data really points, pun intended, to the issue. Point shooting, Israeli Instinctive Point shooting and any other way they can find to re-package the same garbage, DOES NOT WORK!!!

Otherwise, wouldn't the shooters in said videos, using said method, have a higher hit/miss ratio?

How about if they would have just followed a reasonable dry practice regimen, as advocated by all the trainers I know, then they would have had some modicum of training to fall back on. All my trainers at the academy years ago told us,"this is just a starting point, you will have to maintain your training, even though others around you won't"

Read any of the Tactical Patrol series of books offered by calibre press. There is a section in the back of each book where survivors talk about their incident and the changes they have made since surviving. All of them train now, but didn't before the incident. All of them talk about how fellow officers think they have gone a little overboard with their training now. NONE of them think they trained enough before their incident, a mistake none of them will repeat.

I don't know what the final answer will be concerning higher standards. Its like fitness, people know they should eat right and exercise but how many do? Most do after their first heart attack!

I would think that someone who carries a gun as part of their daily attire would take it serious, why they don't is beyond my powers of reason and understanding. That in itself should be self-motivating.

Kids in school analogy; Kids in school are required to do homework to maintain and progress their knowledge and grasp of the subject.
How does an LEO do his "homework" when his "book bag" is in his locker, and he only takes his "book" out of the bag once a year to...,LOL, "qualify", if we can call it that.
------------------
"There is a common thread between competition and combat shooting - only hits count" Keith Cunningham

[This message has been edited by FVK (edited March 22, 2000).]
 
+P, perhaps I was not clear enough when I presented the anecdote. I watched the officer use the "Modern" method while posting a great performance on the range. He was a long time shooter, who learned from LEO friends. Yet 6 mos. prior, when in the thick of it, the "genetic predispostion" is what was evident to the viewer of the tape. NOT the "training". In other words, more evidence for your side. :)
 
FVK,

You wrote:

He states often how the shooters aren't looking at the sights, he has even posted pictures of said shooters in a classic point shooting "stance", ie; shooting one handed, support arm out to side in a way that would make Col. Applegate proud.
So we are led to believe their training is at fault, when this data really points, pun intended, to the issue. Point shooting, Israeli Instinctive Point shooting and any other way they can find to re-package the same garbage, DOES NOT WORK!!!

Otherwise, wouldn't the shooters in said videos, using said method, have a higher hit/miss ratio?

End quote.
(Can you tell that I haven't figured out the "right" way to cut and paste quotes? :) If anyone can tell me how to get the neat indent and bold type format I'll be glad to use it.)

That's a good question. If shooters in real gunfights point shoot and they have a 90% miss rate when they do, doesn't that suggest that point shooting is the cause of the problem, rather than a likely cure?

I think the answer would be that this isn't a fair test because the shooters weren't trained in point shooting technique. They were trying to superimpose their aimed fire training over their instincts and as a result, couldn't use either. Arguably, if they'd been trained in point shooting, they could have done it right.

To be fair, even though I know that formal marksmanship techniques work extremely well when they're applied correctly, I might come to the opposite conclusion by observing some of the shooters I see at the range. They try to line up their sights and squeeze the trigger smoothly, but they still wind up scattering bullets all over (and around) their targets.

Besides, it's hard to deny that point shooting can work at least some of the time. I've seen it done at the range and I've read credible reports of people winning with it in real combat.

There's an interesting article on Bill Clede's website, http://www.clede.com, about the experiments done with classes of police trainees at a college in Ohio that seem to support Plupinc's beliefs. I'll try to look it up and post a more specific link.
 
A tip. When you add a URL, don't put a period at the end like you do when you write a sentence. It gets picked up by the software and included in the HTML code that then gets included in the message; and that makes the URL so it won't work. The URL has to be exact.

Before he died, I believe I exchanged e-mails with Col. Appelgate. I did not know who he was at that time. He was very pleasant. His idea of Point Shooting was a bit different than P&S.

Point Shooting is more in the line of what Victorlewis said above. It ends up being Point and Blast, but you do shoot the gun, and with luck you will hit or kill the SOB you are trying to kill. As such it probably has more value than sighted shooting in close quarters situations.

In WWII lots of soldiers in the front lines never even shot their guns, I have read or been told that, or both. Sounds like a good way to get killed.

If it would be to shoot or not shoot. I say shoot shoot shoot.

The other parties mentioned, I believe, are advocates of Point Shooting or Bullseye.

Mr Wenger is PO at me for darkening his electronic doorway more than once and trying to get him interested in P&S. I have him on my very short list of don't contact again. I am sure I must have done something wrong, and for that I am sorry.

Hey, it is not only the cops who have been beating me up verbally over that past couple of years or so for bringing up P&S, and bringing up P&S, and bringing up P&S....

But, I still say try P&S because for the 999,999th time, it is instinctive AIMED shooting that does not incorporate the sites when aiming. The index finger does that for you. The chance of it being more accurate than Point and Blast where you point the gun but DO NOT AIM, is apparent to me.

I think I have figured out why you guys keep going back to Point Shooting as though that, or Sighted Shooting, or P&S is what is being talked about here. You are not brain impaired, or have nothing new to offer. You are just going over the same ground over and over and over again in hopes that I will make a mistake. Woe is me if that happens. Then it will be, when did you plan your first lie, before or after you were at the scence of the crime.....and so on and so forth. Well it is time to move on.

YOU are supposed to come up with something NEW, not me. Remember, you stand a good chance of being sued unless you do.

Here is something that may be new.

It is a suggestion for a training exercise that would add some real juice to your gun practice and may even make some of you sight shooters convert to P&S. How about rubber bullets and full or half loads at 20 feet, with just a hocky face mask and nut cup for protection. Each party gets tied to a 3 foot tether, to have 6 rounds loaded, and to have their gun unholstered, cocked, and at their side. Top it off with a 4 second time limit and only in-ear plugs. READY??? SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT!!!

I suppose that's already being done???
 
okjoe,
Yes sir it is being done. Its called simunitions. I have trained with them while wearing minimal protection, that is something I would not do again. They will leave a mark.

I will be training again with simunitions in a few monthes. I will be using the full protective gear.

Its a learning experiance, no doubt about it.

------------------
"There is a common thread between competition and combat shooting - only hits count" Keith Cunningham
 
okjoe has started part 3 since this thread is getting a little long to load. I'll close this one.

Continue the discussion here: [Link to invalid post]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top